Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 17, 2013

Making an impact

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, City Council, Development — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

Tonight on the City Council’s agenda there will be both the closed session item about Del Monte negotiating terms and prices about specific buildings (good map here with the building numbers).

Another agenda item of interest is Fiscal Impact of Alameda Point, so far they just have a draft but it’s worth looking through if you are curious.   One part that stood out is about how the City thinks they might possibly help fund infrastructure at Alameda Point.  At one time there was redevelopment funding, it looks like the City of Alameda will instead be examining if Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFD) would be a better fit.

An IFD works kind of like how redevelopment did so there will need to be a secondary funding mechanism to make sure that city services are being covered by new development so in addition to the IFD there would still be the need for a Community Facilities District (CFD) to pay for all the other municipal services.     An IFD :

can divert property tax increment revenues for 30 years to finance highways, transit, water systems, sewer projects, flood control, child care facilities, libraries, parks, and solid waste facilities. IFDs can’t pay for maintenance, repairs, operating costs, and services.

Unlike redevelopment, the property in an IFD doesn’t have to be blighted. IFDs and redevelopment agencies’ project areas can’t overlap.

Forming an IFD is cumbersome. The city or county must develop an infrastructure plan, send copies to every landowner, consult with other local governments, and hold a public hearing. Every local agency that will contribute its property tax increment revenue to the IFD must approve the plan. Schools cannot shift their property tax increment revenues to the IFD. Once the other local officials approve, the city or county must still get the voters’ approval to:

Form the IFD (requires 2/3 voter approval).
Issue bonds (requires 2/3 voter approval).
Set the IFD’s appropriations limit (majority voter approval).

So it is much much more difficult than the redevelopment process was.  According to that link one example of an IFD was to create Legoland in Southern California.   

The impact study is projecting that the number of residents and day time (working) population will require a new Fire Station at Alameda Point to the rough tune of $3.3 million.  And for the Police Department, an additional eight officers will be required to cover the new build out.  The cost per officer is $245K.


1 Comment

  1. I know the infrastructure costs a lot but the developers and businesses should pay for the cost up front and include it in the price of the land or building. In the Alameda Sun they wrote that the new homeowners could pay an additional $5,700 per year in supplemental taxes. who can really afford that? At Bayport we are currently paying approximately $1,175 per year in supplemental taxes. I don’t remember the developer telling us this up front when we bought the house. We vote no on everything now…we can’t hardly afford what we pay. Catellus should eat it or charge more for the land. Or the developer should pay it up front and charge more for the houses. Instead it is a hidden cost of buying a new house in a new development in Alameda. Both Catellus and the developer are making a ton off Alameda Landing. Can anyone explain what is an enterprise zone and the tax benefits that occur there and why they pay less?

    Comment by Joe — December 25, 2013 @ 3:22 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at